Ford remains chief magistrate and is expected to be at some of Tuesday’s city council meeting before heading to the Rogers Centre to coach his Don Bosco Eagles in the “Metro Bowl” high school championship, which starts at 8 p.m.

But the question of his immediate future as civic leader will be played out in front of judges.

Ford’s lawyer, Alan Lenczner, said Monday he will, in the “next couple of days,” go to Divisional Court to launch an appeal of Superior Court Justice Charles Hackland’s ruling that found Ford breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

Lenczner will also try to convince a three-judge Divisional Court panel to “stay”, or put on hold, Hackland’s ruling that the mayor’s office be “vacated.” Hackland himself put that ejection order on hold for 14 days, until Dec. 10, to give city council time to deal with the bombshell.

Lenczner said he doesn’t expect Divisional Court to hear the actual appeal within 14 days but he is confident the panel will agree to hear the time-sensitive stay application as soon as possible.

“It’s up to the court but I certainly wouldn’t bring (the application) if I didn’t think (Ford) had a good chance,” of winning the reprieve that would let him continue to be mayor, the lawyer said.

The court has a three-part test for such applications, Lenczner added.

Ford must show that he has “a good arguable case,” and that the legal issues raised aren’t frivolous or vexatious, Lenczner said.

The second is that the order in question causes “irreparable harm” that cannot be compensated with money, which Lenczner said is obviously the case with a removal from office.

The third is the “balance of convenience” that asks if the public is better served by leaving the status quo until the appeal is settled — Lenczner believes that could happen within two months — or moving to have a new mayor, either through a byelection or by council appointing an interim leader.

John Mascarin, a municipal affairs specialist with Aird & Berlis LLP who closely followed the Ford conflict of interest hearing, but is not involved in it, said he believes Divisional Court will stay Hackland’s ejection order.

“I think Ford will get his stay,” said Mascarin, who correctly predicted Ford would be found to have breached the Act and would be ordered out of office.

“The test is the same as for an injunction and I believe Ford will be able to meet the threshold.”

Other experts, however, have suggested Ford might not meet the test and be out of office sooner rather than later.

As for the appeal, Lenczner estimates Divisional Court will hear arguments from him and Clayton Ruby, the lawyer who brought the conflict complaint on behalf of Toronto resident Paul Magder, by mid-December or early January, and issue a decision on whether to overturn Hackland’s ruling “a few weeks” after that.

If Ford is kicked out of office, either in the next two weeks or after losing the appeal, Deputy Mayor Doug Holyday will assume his duties until council can hold an emergency meeting and decide what to do next.

Council could either trigger a $7 million byelection and let Torontonians pick the mayor to govern them until the next election, on Oct. 27, 2014, or hold a vote amongst themselves to choose one to serve as a caretaker mayor.

Whether Ford could run in a byelection — as opposed to waiting until 2014 — remains cloudy and it’s not apparent who will clear that up, even as Ford publicly proclaims he would be the first to declare a candidacy among what could be a crowded field.

In his ruling, Hackland wrote that he would not impose on Ford “any further disqualification from holding office beyond the current term.” (Under the law, he could have barred Ford from seeking re-election for up to seven years.) Lenczner believes Hackland was stating that he would not banish Ford from re-election and “term” refers to the 14-day period for which Hackland suspended his own ruling.

“I think the mayor can run again at any time,” Lenczner said.

But “term” can also be interpreted to mean the current council term that ends in late 2014. If that’s the case, Hackland’s order bars Ford from seeking re-election before then.

Mascarin said the he was unsure of the judge’s intent so he had a colleague research the use of the word “term” in such judgments.

“The answer that came back is that the term is 2010 to 2014,” Mascarin said, adding he “respectfully disagrees” with Lenczner’s interpretation.

Even if Ford survives the conflict of interest saga, another legal iceberg looms dead ahead that could sink his mayoralty.

A forensic accounting company is conducting an audit of Ford’s campaign finances. It was ordered by the city’s compliance audit committee and initially fought in court by Ford.

Froese Forensic will offer a written opinion, expected within the next two months, on whether it appears that Ford contravened the Municipal Elections Act.

If the company finds “apparent contraventions,” the city’s compliance audit committee will decide whether to pursue charges. If charges are laid, a judge would eventually render a decision.

The law says violators face removal from office, a fine of up to $25,000, and, for any violation “committed knowingly,” up to six months in jail.

Removal from office, lawyer Jack Siegel told the Star in April, is in practice “reserved for things that are so severe that you really don’t want to let the horribly corrupt individual who cheated his way into office continue.”

With files from Daniel Dale

More on thestar.com

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our
Community Code of Conduct.
For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website
Terms and Conditions.